[dgdosen]

The first thing I wondered about these comments is how often "Peak Oil" would be mentioned. There has been no peak oil related crash. I think the world's economy and markets are now resilient enough to safely say 'peak oil' will never be a cause for the collapse of civilization. Rising energy prices will just usher out the age of fossil fuels faster.

I now wonder what happens when (if?) we get to 'net 0' (which hasn't been mentioned in these comments). If we can reach a point of unlimited, renewable, clean energy that's (almost) too cheap to meter, that just upends any model because it'll zero out factors that are parts of or 'limits' in those models.

- Lack of fresh water: solved by free/clean energy (desalinization)

- Lack of adequate food supply: solved by free/clean energy (fertilizer production)

- Lack of resources: potentially solved by free/clean energy (asteroid farming? recycling?)

It's hard to imagine a problem that unlimited, clean energy won't help solve.

The question is, can we get to net zero?

[onlyrealcuzzo]

How would we ever get there?

The cost to build and maintain powerplants is expensive - whether it's solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear. This cost needs to be amortized over the life of the plant. It's hard to imagine this getting to less than $0.05 / kWh.

Construction costs alone make Nuclear Energy cost ~$0.08 / kWh even in China where construction is relatively cheap. Even if we get Fusion energy, AFAIK it's unlikely the construction will be substantially cheaper.

Obviously if anything was free - people would abuse it. You would need to build endless powerplants (which cost money) to provide free energy for people to launch rockets and mine asteroids and produce fertilizer and desalinate water...

[dgdosen]

Would a Kardashev Type 1 civilization have too many powerplants?

If we can get to net zero first, that would affect your model's calculation that we would require endless power plants.

[dd36]

Net negative.